Supreme Court Upholds Appointments Made 25 Years Ago in Bihar Gazetted Cadre Selection: Mirza Ali Raza & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) INSC 36 (03 February 2016)

Case Background

The case originated from a selection process conducted by the State of Bihar for various posts in the Gazetted Cadre through the 36th Combined Competitive Examination, advertised on January 9, 1989. The reservation policy at the time was governed by a resolution dated November 10, 1978. Subsequently, a new reservation policy was introduced on October 30, 1990. The State Government then declared on January 7, 1991, that the new policy would apply even to examinations for which results had not been announced.

The results of the 36th Combined Examination were released on May 11, 1991. Some candidates from the general merit category claimed that the application of the new reservation policy had prejudiced their chances. They filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on May 14, 1999, citing that the results had not been challenged and appointments had already been made. The Single Judge also noted that the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

A Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s order on February 22, 2000. The Division Bench noted that the Government’s resolution of October 30, 1990, had already been quashed by the High Court on May 23, 1991, before the results were published. The Division Bench directed the State Government to either create shadow posts for the affected candidates or to push down candidates who had been appointed based on the quashed reservation policy.

Initially, the State did not challenge this order. However, contempt proceedings were initiated. The State Government, after consulting the State Public Service Commission, decided to implement the second option, which resulted in the dislocation of 27 officers on April 30, 2004. This action affected several officers, including the appellants in the present case.

The order of the Division Bench of February 22, 2000, was challenged in the Supreme Court, but the challenge was dismissed on September 24, 2004, making the order final. The Division Bench also closed the contempt proceedings on May 5, 2004, noting that two of the aggrieved applicants had benefited from the order of April 30, 2004.

The appellants then approached the High Court challenging the order of April 30, 2004. A Single Judge initially allowed their writ petitions on September 17, 2007, but modified the order on September 20, 2007, dismissing the petitions while maintaining the status quo for eight weeks. The Division Bench, on September 8, 2008, accepted the State Government’s proposal to create shadow posts for the affected officers and directed that the appellants should not be removed from service until fresh orders were issued.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the State of Bihar’s reservation policies, specifically the resolutions dated November 10, 1978, and October 30, 1990. The resolution of October 30, 1990, was quashed by the High Court on May 23, 1991, which became a central point of contention. The government order dated January 7, 1991, which sought to apply the 1990 policy to pending selections, was also a key factor.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the State Government’s decision to implement the second option of pushing down candidates was unjust, especially since the selection process had been completed in 1990 and appointments had been made in 1992. They contended that they had been serving in their respective posts for 25 years due to interim court orders and that the interference with the selection was unwarranted. They also pointed out that only four individuals were aggrieved by the initial selection, and two of them had already been accommodated.

The State of Bihar argued that it was bound to comply with the Division Bench’s order of February 22, 2000, and that the order of April 30, 2004, was a necessary consequence of that compliance. The State also contended that it was facing contempt proceedings for not complying with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

The State of Jharkhand argued that as a result of the order dated April 30, 2004, some of the officers were directed to get themselves repatriated to the State of Bihar.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was right in directing the State Government to create supernumerary posts or push down the candidates, and whether the State Government was justified in dislocating the appellants and other officers after 25 years of service.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any authorities (cases or books) other than the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court itself in the course of the proceedings. However, the following orders were considered:

• Order of the learned Single Judge dated 14th May, 1999
• Order of the Division Bench dated 22nd February, 2000
• Order of the Supreme Court dated 24th September, 2004 in SLP (C) No.20589 of 2004
• Order of the Division Bench dated 5th May, 2004 in MJC NO. 1938 of 2000
• Order of the Supreme Court dated 7th November, 2005 in SLP (C) NO. 20732 of 2004
• Order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th September, 2007
• Order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th September, 2007
• Order of the Division Bench dated 8th September, 2008

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and transferred cases, directing the State Governments to allow the appellants and petitioners to continue in their respective posts. The Court held that these officers had been serving for over 25 years, and their continued service would not cause prejudice to anyone. The Court also directed that the officers should be allowed to retire upon reaching the age of superannuation. The Court also clarified that the benefit granted under this order should also apply to the applicants in IA NOs. 16, 17 and 20 who are identically placed like that of the appellants and who have been pursuing their remedies till this date.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellants had been serving in their respective posts for over 25 years. The Court emphasized that allowing them to continue would not cause prejudice to anyone, while also noting that the grievances of the original four aggrieved candidates had been addressed or were no longer being pursued. The Court also took into account the long passage of time and the fact that the appellants had continued in their posts due to interim court orders. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the state government had not acted on the order of the High Court for a long time and had only acted when it was forced to do so by the contempt proceedings. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the state government had not given the appellants an opportunity to be heard before passing the order of 30th April 2004.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the alternative of upholding the order of the Division Bench, which would have resulted in the dislocation of the appellants. However, the Court rejected this alternative, emphasizing the long period of service by the appellants and the lack of prejudice to others. The final decision was reached by balancing the legal requirements with the practical realities of the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The appellants had been serving for over 25 years.
• Their continued service would not cause prejudice to anyone.
• The grievances of the original aggrieved candidates had been addressed or were no longer being pursued.
• The State Government had not acted on the order of the High Court for a long time and had only acted when it was forced to do so by the contempt proceedings.
• The State Government had not given the appellants an opportunity to be heard before passing the order of 30th April 2004.

The Court quoted from the judgment the following:

“…we find that having regard to the position that prevails as on date, we can pass orders directing the respective State Governments to continue to allow the appellants and petitioners in the transferred cases who have come before us to hold the respective posts for which they came to be originally appointed and by passing such orders no prejudice can be caused either to the respective State Governments or to those aggrieved officers…”

“…the appellants and petitioners in transferred cases have been holding the post from the date of their initial appointment and are continuing as such till this date namely for the past more than 25 years and in the absence of any serious challenge to their holding of the respective posts, we are convinced that by allowing them to continue to retain their posts till they reach the age of superannuation no prejudice will be caused to anyone.”

“…this order shall not be and cannot be quoted as a precedent in any other case, inasmuch as this order is being passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases on hand…”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of equity and the need to avoid disrupting the established status quo after such a long period of time. The Court also considered the fact that the original aggrieved parties had either been accommodated or had not pursued their grievances further.

The decision has potential implications for future cases involving long-standing appointments and disputes over reservation policies. It suggests that courts may be reluctant to disturb appointments that have been in place for a significant period, especially when no prejudice is caused to other parties.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the appointments of civil servants who had been serving for over 25 years.
• Courts may be reluctant to disturb long-standing appointments, especially when no prejudice is caused to other parties.
• Interim orders of the court can have a significant impact on the final outcome of cases.
• The State Government should act in a fair manner and give an opportunity to be heard to the affected parties before passing any order.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to allow the appellants and petitioners to continue in their respective posts until they reach the age of superannuation. The Court also directed that the State Governments should not interfere with the initial postings and the subsequent benefits accrued to them based on such postings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts may be reluctant to disturb long-standing appointments, especially when no prejudice is caused to other parties. There is no change in the previous position of law in this case. The Supreme Court has decided the case based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and has clarified that the order should not be quoted as a precedent in any other case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides relief to the appellants and petitioners who had been serving in their posts for over two decades. The Court’s emphasis on equity and the need to avoid disruption of long-standing appointments highlights the importance of stability and fairness in public service. The Court’s decision also underscores the importance of considering the practical implications of legal decisions, particularly when dealing with complex issues of reservation and appointments.